Nagle v. California Southern Railroad
Before: Foote
Synopsis
Negligence — Responsibility op Railroad Company — Safety of Passengers. — Although a railroad company is responsible for the safety of its passengers, as far as human care and foresight will go, for the utmost care and diligence of very cautious persons, and for the slightest neglect, yet it cannot he held to the responsibility of warranting the safety of its passengers at all events.
Id. — Contributory Negligence of Passenger—Question of Law.— It is for the court on the undisputed facts to determine whether or not the passenger was guilty of negligence which contributed to the injury sustained by him.
Id,—Nonsuit — Evidence of Plaintiff—Burden of Proof.—A non-suit is proper when the evidence of the plaintiff so conclusively establishes his contributory negligence that the court would grant a new trial in case of a verdict in his favor upon the same evidence; and the fact that the burden of proof may be upon the defendant to establish the contributory negligence of the plaintiff will not preclude such nonsuit.
Id.—Negligence of Passenger in Alighting from Train — Mistake of Fellow-passengers. — Contributory negligence is attributable to a passenger who, without any intimation from the train-men that it is his stopping-place, while the train is halting a moment upon a trestle, alights hurriedly in the dark, without carefully looking for a place to alight, and sustains injury from falling into a canon beneath the trestle; and this, notwithstanding other passengers believed that it was a regular station, and some of them were preparing to leave the train, and the plaintiff was told by one of the passengers to get out quick, as the train would only stop a moment.
Foote, C. The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for injuries caused him by the alleged [88]carelessness and negligence of the defendant. After the introduction of the plaintiff’s evidence, a jury having been waived, the defendant moved for a nonsuit, which was granted. From the judgment rendered in the premises, and an order denying a new trial, this appeal is taken.
The facts as they appear in the evidence of the plaintiff are, that on Sunday night, April 15, 1888, he was traveling on the defendant’s railroad; had bought his ticket at San Diego for La Jolla, a station on that road. He had been on this journey before, in the daytime, and knew that at La Jolla there was a platform to get out upon, and that it had a shed over it, and the ground was level around the station at that point. In going from San Diego to La Jolla before, he knew the train had only made three stops, — at Old Town, Morena, and La Jolla. There were five other persons with him on the present trip, passengers to La Jolla. He did not know whether there were lights about La Jolla and the station at night. The train stopped some time at Old Town to water or coal; it then stopped at Morena. After this it again stopped; he did not not “ know what for.” Everybody got astir in the car, and “the men allowed this was La Jolla.” There was a kind of rush; that is, of the men in the car who had to get off at La Jolla, thinking they were there. The man alongside of the plaintiff stood up; the latter sat still until the train came to a stop. The man said: “You had better get out quick; the train don’t stop a minute.” The plaintiff got out, and in doing so, “ walked right off, and went down a cañón, as our car was standing on a trestle-work.” He did not know how long this was after leaving Morena, or how far this place was from La Jolla. He thought he was walking down the steps to “the platform,” instead of which he went down the cañón. He fell ten or twelve feet; nobody else got out; he sprained his ankle and suffered other injuries.
[89]On cross-examination, he did not seem to be certain that the train did stop at Morena, or how long; when the whistle blew he did not see the conductor, the latter having taken up the plaintiff’s ticket before the train stopped; nor did he see any of the train-men when he walked off. The whistle was blown sharply, but how many times he did not remember. On redirect examination he knew that the train stopped twice after leaving San Diego before reaching the trestle, once at Old Town and once at Morena.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)